Re: Are mails sent to xxxx <at> buildd.debian.org sent to /dev/null ?
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:04:49PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette <joss <at> debian.org> writes:
> > > One month ago, I asked the alpha and mips buildd maintainers to
> > > reschedule h5utils, which failed to build because of a missing build for
> > > dependency. Was this email even read? Do these addresses have an utility
> > > in the real world?
> I've sent messages to various arch@buildd.debian.org addresses many
> times for various reasons, and they have all always been ignored.
Truely, do you expect faster reaction just because the mail addresses
changed, but the receiving persons are still the same?
Why should they react faster just because the mail was sent to an alias
instead of the persons real mail address?
> The
> xerces23 and xerces24 packages are still on not-for-us lists for
> architectures that they do and always have worked on though I have
> requested resolution of this multiple times over many months, and the
> nip2 packages need to be requeued on some platforms because of failed
> build dependencies that have long since been resolved. My requests on
> this have also been ignored.
Are you surprised? I'm not.
> > > Do I have to re-upload a new version with no change, just to make it
> > > propagate to sarge?
> > Good question. Any takers?
> An alternative to this would be build manually on the missing
> architectures and to do a binary upload, right? Someone did this for
> me of the xerces packages. I can't do it myself because I'm not a DD
> yet (I was approved by my AM in August and by the front desk in
> September), so I'm not sure whether the sponsor used one of the
> available build systems or used his own system. (It was a powerpc
> build in this case that was needed, and he does have a powerpc.)
Searching for someone with an appropriate arch is just a work around, no
solution to the problem.
Although the problem is well known and the solution is obvious, nobody seems
to have the guts to make a change (or even to speak about it).
> I'm not sure if developers have any recourse when things get stuck in
> person wait, as seems to be the case with some autobuilder problems as
> well as with the NM process. My strategy has always been to be
> patient and to try to find an alternative.
Sadly there's no alternative sometimes. :(
> I'm sure the unwitting
> bottlenecks are overcommitted rather than uncaring, and I don't want
> to be a nag. Are there polite/helpful things those of us waiting on
> arch@buildd.debian.org can do to help speed the process? I've even
> resorted to sending email to the individual buildd admins, but this
> has also always failed, even though I try my best to be pleasant about
> it.
It's not your fault, for sure.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: